I wandered lonely as a cloud, by Wordsworth

I wandered lonely as a cloud:
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars
that shine and twinkle on the Milky Way,
They stretched in never-ending line
along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
in such a jocund company:
I gazed - and gazed - but little thought
what wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

好文章

其實本人一直很喜歡推卸責任，一直在香港都不喜歡看報紙，原因是，質素太不濟。

以下的社評就感到香港報業的一些弊端。

這都是個人意見，而且我也可以理解其中的原意，當中的許多政治敏感的議題。

基本上，香港報紙的社評的選材和分析總是流於一些表面，大衆化，毫無爭議性的論點。

下面關於西藏的報道，一開始我以爲也是一樣，雖然它沒講出一些比較重要的西藏獨立問題，但站與它的立場，而這次的新聞自由這議題上，其實有很多值得贊許的地方，寫得很ｓｕｂｔｌｅ　ａｎｄ　ｉｒｏｎｉｃ，尤其是紅色的那幾段。我相信讀者們也有自己的傳譯。

先很諷刺的講中國這種驅趕記者的做法其實在某一個程度上已經是一個進步。然後將民間媒體的角色是去“證實＂官方媒體的報道。一切都很政治正確，卻帶有言外之意。

然後在ｒａｔｉｏｎａｌｉｓｅ這次中國訊息封鎖的過人之處，雖然媒體一直指摘武力鎮壓，但證據欠奉。

In legal terms, China is keeping the benefit of the doubt - now what's clear is merely the rebellion activity within Tibet, no one can say for sure whether China has actually used force, and how much force it has used.

That's actually a very common tactic of many countries in suppressing internal rebellions, or dealing with terrorists or revolutionaries - they refuse to pass any information to international tribunals on the ground of 'national security', and that will stifle any judicial investigation and fact finding process.

It's not entirely wise to leave this image to the west, but what's clever about this manoeuvre is how, given that it has already decided to suppress the internal rebellion, China has presented its actions in the best light.

What this editorial has achieved is to making a mild claim against China on press freedom which is pretty uncontentious, but it's actually said a lot more than that. Well done.

透明執法可堵攸攸之口 逐記者離藏乃一大敗筆 (明報) 03月 18日 星期二 05:05AM

【明報專訊】西藏 爆發1989年以來最大騷亂，全球關注中國政府如何處理這次事件。最新發展是：西藏當局暫停批准外國人入藏，已到西藏的也被勸喻離開，本港5個電子媒介的記者，被「安排」離開，沒收拍攝到武警或公安片段的錄影帶或記憶卡，並強行刪除記者電腦內的相片等。這個封閉而不透明的做法，不但失去一個有力地反駁「鎮壓和平示威」的機會，反而倍添外界「關門打狗」的惡劣印象。

容許採訪有助取信天下

上周五發生騷亂之後，官方新華社 和中央電視台很快便報道了有關消息，雖然欠完整，但是與過去遲報或不予報道比較，這是一個進步；在北京 出席兩會的西藏官員，就事態也坦然回答記者提問，到昨日，西藏自治區主席向巴平措在記者會上，詳細講述騷亂經過。可以說到這個階段，西藏騷亂和連帶甘肅 等 地藏人的一些動態，外界從正常渠道知悉，公開而透明度較高。正如其他國家、地區發生類似騷亂一樣，官員所披露和官方傳媒的報道，都是官方說法，如果容許民 間傳媒透過採訪，「證實」官方說法就是事態真相，則官方的公信力自然大大提高。今次中國政府本來有這樣的機會，可惜沒有好好把握。

達賴喇嘛 在印度 召 開記者會，就這次西藏騷亂，指摘中國政府以武力鎮壓和平示威，西方傳媒基本上也是這種口徑。但是中國政府用什麼武力去鎮壓這次騷亂呢？從迄今所有報道，沒 有見到過有公安、武警對付、毆打暴徒的鏡頭和照片，如果有這樣的鏡頭或照片，相信一定已經廣泛流傳，西方傳媒也會鋪天蓋地報道，中國政府就此事所承受的國 際壓力，肯定沒有現在的相對輕微。現在人們從影像上所了解的西藏騷亂，都是暴徒持棒握刀的打、砸、搶、燒畫面，暴徒放火燒學校、燒民居、在通衢大道眦商 舖，連平民百姓駕電單車經過，也被截停，暴徒眦車毆人等等。

因此，從這些畫面表明，這是一次騷亂，並非和平示威；而從畫面 所見，人們也得不出公安、武警武力鎮壓的結論。事實是戳破偏見的最有力武器。但是就在當局一再強調局勢已經穩定、拉薩市面復歸平靜，包括學校照常上課之 際，當局開始「驅趕」外人，包括香港記者。今日零時以前，是當局呼籲參與騷亂的人自首，爭取寬大處理的最後時限，因此時間上，當局的做法，予人「關門打 狗」的印象。從事態本質而言，這樣的印象，不但完全可以避免，如果處理得當，還可以改變部分外國人、特別是西方傳播媒體的偏見。

當局迄今未見武力鎮壓，什麼開槍、出動坦克等都是沒有事實支持 的流言，整個騷亂過程，沒有什麼值得隱瞞，當局應該讓記者自行採訪，使得事態透過民間媒體，向世人報道真相，以取得更多認同和理解。現在西藏沒有外國人、 也沒有記者了，就算當局並無什麼陰謀詭計，但是一定會引來諸多猜測，認為「鎮壓」現在才開始。事實上，從畫面所見，一些暴徒的行為，確實應該繩之於法，但 是類似西藏騷亂這類含有政治意義的事件，應該在讓人見得到公平的情下執法，否則會被指為「秘密鎮壓」。由此觀之，西藏對「外人」堅壁清野，完全不恰當、 也無必要。

應糾正驅趕記者的做法

當局對外暫時封閉，可能是因為西藏事態十分敏感、複雜，不准外人和外國人留藏、入藏，是恐怕混入的人會組織煽動暴亂，使得事態進一步惡化。當局的憂慮可以理解，但是若反應過度，效果會適得其反。

正如新華社的報道說，達賴去年訪問歐美時多次聲稱：「2008年是關鍵的一年，奧運 會也許是藏人的最後機會了，呼籲有關國家在與中國打交道時，把『西藏問題』與北京奧運會 聯 繫起來。」今年1月接受記者採訪時，達賴進一步要求其支持者在北京奧運會期間舉行示威遊行，並藉此宣揚藏人的請求。因此，達賴藉北京奧運攪局，應該在當局 意料之內，對於所有人而言，這個並非新議題。國際人士、特別是對中國有偏見的人，現在就看中國政府如何處理這次西藏騷亂，如果過猛踰度，則所謂打壓西藏人 權，甚至達賴所謂「滅絕西藏文化」的罪名，更加難以洗脫；另外對北京奧運造成的衝擊，也不能低估。

西藏騷亂這類突發事件的應對和處理，考驗覑中國歷經改革開放，經濟上取得舉世矚目成就之後，是否已經有足夠的自信。我們認為如果當局能夠糾正驅趕記者的做法，掃除「關門打狗」的疑慮，則是逐步走向成熟的表現。

英語教育

現在比較冷靜,可以進行理性的討論:

我本身對孫公的政策最大的不滿是,所謂的語言彈性政策，根本不能對症下藥。他所提出的是改善港人英語的大方向。我對這目標毫無異議，而且是深表贊同，因爲港人的英語太瀾了。

但我覺得很失望，因爲政策層的人，所想所計劃的，似乎從來沒考慮到問題的核心，和與現實的配合。

我覺得這大方向是不能僅僅以改變語言政策來改善整體的英語水平，因爲語言的學習不是這麽簡單。

我的主要論點是：

第一，英語教學的學校不一定能提高學生的英語水平。

第二，英語水平的提升不一定需要用全英語教學的政策。因爲語言是需要有效的培育，而現在港人英語水平的主要問題來源，依我所見，不是EMI或CMI的區別，而是學生怎樣學英語的問題。



第一，英語教學可以讓學生的英語有一定程度的提升，這一點我不否認。譬如說，大部分的EMI學校的學生認識的詞彙量比CMI學校的學生大。

可是，很多英語學校的學生的英語仍然強差人意，有些連寫一個通順的句子都不能，甚至不會講很簡單的英語。我沒有數據，都是一個general observation，我講的不是全港最佳的二十家學校，而是其他比較一般的學校。

這是一個笑話，因爲用英語念了五年書，居然不能講英語， 他們一直怎麽學，怎麽學英語，怎麽學他們本身的學科，怎麽混過去的？學校做了什麽？香港人這麽笨，學不會英語嗎？


第二，我想講的是，重要的是學生怎樣學英語，中中的學校還可以孕育出出類拔萃的學生，原因是，這一些學生特別聰明，並能掌握學習語言之道。教育政策如果真得想提高英語水平，應該重新想一下何謂學習語言之道?

ＴＨＥ　ＷＡＹ　ＯＦ　ＬＥＡＲＮＩＮＧ　ＥＮＧＬＩＳＨ

口號式的政策最簡單不過，四多：多讀，多寫，多講，多聼。very cliched, but very true. 但是，在政策層面來説，這未免流於簡單，究竟學校怎樣配套，怎樣把這一個　＂道＂實踐？我覺得這才是問題的關鍵。


我覺得學英語有幾點是最重要的：

第一，提升學生的興趣，讓學生喜歡英語，有一種ｉｎｔｒｉｎｓｉｃ　ｍｏｔｉｖａｔｉｏｎ自發性的動機去學英語。

第二，扶助比較弱的學生，因爲一旦學生過了一年的ＥＭＩ洗禮后，發現自己跟不上，很多學生從那一刻開始，有兩個後果：

１　他們可能會放棄，因爲英語差，阻礙了學習其他科目，反正怎樣都跟不上。老師說的聼不明白，書本寫得太艱深，問題想到，卻寫不出。

２　如果他們想努力，盡力的話，他們也無從着手。因爲英語一開始學不好，過了一個黃金年齡（一般人的十六嵗左右），就永遠都學不好，因爲ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｅｖｅｒ　ｍａｋｅ　ｓｅｎｓｅ。

第三，要創造一個英語的環境，讓學生可以活學活用，真正能把英語運用於生活上。


要做到這幾點，政策層面需要配套的是：

第一，培訓師資，提升老師英語水平。好的英語老師是必要，因爲學生學錯的英語，對他們的發展有很大的障礙。

第二，重新檢討課程，因爲很多英語書實在太悶，大部分學生根本提不起勁去翻。

第三，檢討教學的方法，應該多注重運用，而不是死記硬背；文法重要，但更重要的是ｅｘｐｏｓｕｒｅ，讓學生可以真的四多。



在此作一些澄清：

１　有朋友跟我講，香港一直都用中文教英語。

我對此有這樣的看法：

香港人的母語是中文，最初用中文學是無可口誹的。

但語言能學好，歸根到底，都是得用哪种語言去思想才能學好，如果整天都是翻譯，是不可能學好的。

而ｅｍｉ的層面來説，其他學科應該用中文教，英語課本嗎？我覺得用中文教是一個折衝的辦法，畢竟，學生，老師的水平根本不能達到這樣的程度。

我所提出的建議是：如果學生能一開始有足夠的援助，讓他們都可以有效用英語溝通，這是ｅｍｉ的先決條件，但政策卻一直忽視這一點。




２　另一位朋友說，學生英語學不好，多是自己不想學，如果真正想學，就能學好。

我不否認學生的責任，但我覺得教育的本意，是鼓勵，引發學生的興趣。如果學生不想學，教育政策應該針對這個問題，對症下藥，讓學生提起興趣，喜歡學英語，讓他們不會覺得學英語是不可能的。




３　第三位朋友說，教育局這是一個ｄｉｓｇｕｉｓｅｄ　ｅｌｉｔｉｓｔ　ｐｏｌｉｃｙ，讓一少數人說很好的英語，放棄其他的。

可能吧，但我只想說，ｔｈｅ　ｅｌｉｔｅｓ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｅｖｅｎ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ　ｆｏｒ　１％ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｔｕｄｅｎｔ　ｐｏｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎ，and that means failing the most part of the next generation.


整體來説，我還是覺得無論ＣＭＩ或ＥＭＩ，最重要的問題不被正視，永遠不會改善。

Shifting and Swinging Medium of Instruction

Seeing the education bureau's proposal of a massive shift in the policy on medium of instruction, i just feel really annoyed and disappointed - what now with this bunch of idiots again...

Firstly i'm declaring my biassed view because of my personal grudge (because my year was the first year to 'receive' this kind of two-tier allocation system when it was introduced in 1998 in magnificent propaganda) - and also how i have witnessed how this divide has failed so many students in hong kong. ARGH

Going back to the subject matter of the language policy - Chinese or English or EITHER?

I can see there are many reasons why this massive shift again 10 years on.

1. Allowing more schools to turn to EMI on certain criteria will generally raise English standards.

2. This gives schools more discretion to do what's best for their own students in their view (ideally if that's the school's primary concern).



But I feel very disappointed about this model. I'm in favour of reform - but not reform in this manner.

1. English standards will not simply be raised just because schools use English as the medium of instruction 'in theory'.

This is blatant self-contradiction for the education bureau - ten years ago they said students can still learn great English in CMI schools, now they seem to have come to admit defeat and that they messed up 10 years of students' English for a mistaken point of view.

I'm saying EMI in theory because most EMI schools - i'm speaking of the best ones now - they can't actually use English as the medium of instruction, although they claim to. Teachers teach in Cantonese and use English textbooks. This actually doesn't help a student to use English.

Okay, why is EMI not enough?

A. The effectiveness of a system depends on the way it is put into practice. There are not the resources to support such a language policy. The English standards of teachers in general (even English teachers) are falling, and I personally have had half of my teachers who just don't speak English. (no offence, but just as a matter of fact). When you demand from someone what is impossible, this is what I call unrealistic. Those teachers who cannot speak English but nonetheless try to play along with the system, they have my full admiration, but their poor English actually doesn't help students to learn English properly.

B. I'm not personally against an EMI system - but I think it can only be successful on a very essential condition: the students and teachers are given the HELP to acquire a sufficient level of English proficiency to be able to use English on that high level to learn in English, think in English, chat in English.

For me, it is all about creating an English environment in school that promotes its use in school as well as helps students with special English needs. Especially the first year secondary school students should get A LOT OF additional help with learning in English in order to make the transition - that is the very premise of the success of this system. I can't see that happening now, and thats why many students from EMI schools can't even speak English after having gone through these five years of education in English, in theory.

So I think the key part to the reform is not about whether every subject should be taught in English, but how English itself is taught in school. It is that which will make the difference to students' English standards.

I'm glad the authorities say they will look at Finland and Netherlands' examples for comparison - i hope they won't again fail the students of Hong Kong and impose their myopic views upon the next generation.




As regards the discretion of school argument, I'm not convinced that will help because most schools are more concerned about their own reputation and 'status' - EMI schools generally attract more students, and will help their schools to do better. They won't be as concerned about whether their students can catch up, and learn effectively in English.



This language policy is annoying me quite a bit, I'm afraid. I'll probably rant more later.

Meaning of life

After bouts of negative emotions, light seems to be emerging at the end of the tunnel. (just to sound more sentimental). There are always bad days, and they will pass.

My sister wrote an email to me about her reflection on the meaning of life - actually I didn't consciously write about it.

My sister says it's a purpose driven life.

And she has given me a lovely quote from the Bible.

'You are the light of the world. A city on hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on the stand, and gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.'
matthew 5:14-16


I'm not a philosopher though I'd quite like my learned friend to enlighten me on the underlying philosophical debate.

But to me, I believe in determinism too, and life is not really up to us to control. An individual's life is only set in the wider context of fate and destiny - depending on, amongst others, where you are born, raised etc, who you meet in life, what you see the first time your reason has started to function...

We're all influenced by our environment and I think to the extent that all our 'choices' and 'purposes' are not really our own - they are all conferred or actually imposed upon us. Sometimes I think, ah this is an 'epiphany' - i know what i'm going to do now, as if there was a breakthrough. But actually if you think back, that comes from some day, somewhere, or someone.


I really dont know what life is about because this is all too complicated.

Everyone has different values and it is these values that inform us what we think life ought to be about. And many people who dare to stick their head out to say 'i have a different opinion' - they always seem to me to either have an extraordinary source of support in some way, or they withdraw from society.

It's not easy to be in the minority, and when you think everyone else has got it wrong.

It's even harder to express your stance clearly and tell everyone that they are fucking idiots.

It's however very easy to conform and go with the flow. That's probably the meaning of my life. To be driven by the leading stream of this chaotic era.

無論如何

到了牛屎彿後學到的是，把生活的一切都放棄，因爲你在這裡就是接受一種機械式的訓練．

本來，這就是一個很珍貴的機會，但無可奈何，這機會背負一個沉重的代價．

可能是一種提早被現實捆綁的困境．無論明天發生什麽事，世界不會為你而停下來．適者生存，弱肉強食，你不夠強悍，是自找的苦，但在這個生活節奏這麽快的社會，還是那一句：ｔｉｍｅ　ｗａｉｔｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｎｏ　ｍａｎ．

心裏很不舒服，因爲這個學期挺多事情發生了。剛剛知道一個好友的親友去世，最近我香港最好的朋友決定退學，我的姥姥和阿姨進醫院了，我自己的一塌糊塗，與友人的爭執，還有最近一連串的負面新聞，内地雪災，這失聰女教師自殺等等。

情緒很不穩定，總是起伏不定，因爲我還是太不成熟了。

有很多事情值得我開心，安慰，感動，甚至，我以爲這一個月自己重拾自己的理想，目標，人生的方向，慢慢把從前的那一股勁抓回來。

可是，我卻這麽軟弱。


在這裡只是想說，無論如何，重新站起來，勇敢繼續把路走下去，好好的走出一條漂亮的路。

我也跟自己說，無論如何，撐住，一定沒問題的。

凝望

凝望就是那為自殺女教師的部落格。有空去看一下，原來她已透露了自殺的念頭。

希望大家多關心身邊的人，讓這種悲劇不會再發生。

An end

失聰女教師留書跳樓亡
受歧視苦讀成才 國際棋賽屢獲獎

I feel really sorry for this incredible teacher and chess prodigy. A very tough life indeed - to get used to deafness, and stand up from all the pains and discrimination, and to overcome all the difficulty in studying to get a degree and go abroad.

It seems no one would find out what was really going on in her mind apart from the letter. She probably kept everything to herself, poor thing.

She has been holding on to it all her life, and it was at that point she could not carry on any longer. Something enormous must have happened to make her take her life away.

kosovo - an alternative (more authoritative) analysis

It came to light that a professor here seems to know a lot about the issue of kosovo independence, and I've had the privilege to listen to his extemporaneous discussion on the topic. (I will keep his name anonymous but his view is different from mine)

Essentially, he disagrees that the Kosovo Albanians have the right to self-determination. His main disagreement is that the Kosovo Albanians do not qualify as a people but only a minority. To be honest I am not sure if I completely understand it, but I think there are two main points:

Firstly, what about the Albanians in Macedonia and Albania?
Secondly, the Albanians had been a minority enjoying autonomy in Serbia.

I personally don't entirely agree that this is settled; rather, i think it's fairly arguable both ways. The mere fact that one ethnic group is present in more than one territory surely cannot deny their right to self-determination, given the current trend of globalisation and the massive ethnic migration during the dissolution of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But this is probably a lot more complicated than i envisage.



He has also advanced a major policy argument against recognising Kosovo as an independent State because this would encourage minorities to provoke their own national States to commit human rights abuse against them, and get international intervention, after which they can proclaim independence. Basically he emphasised the fact that the Kosovans started it in the discriminatory policy against the Serbs driving them out of Kosovo in the first place - though Serbia responded in a fairly disproportionate way. And also, there had been a previous political solution to the problem by giving Kosovo autonomy as part of Serbia - meaning independence had been rejected as an option already. That can't change merely by reason of international intervention.


There is also another issue of State responsibility for intervening in matters of other States leading to secession - it is possible that those NATO states that give recognition might incur responsibility. But i think that is contingent upon Kosovo not having a right to self-determination in the first place, and it is also arguable whether recognition constitutes a sufficient intervening act.

找到關於羅志華先生的一個網誌--

Be kind rewind *, 羅志華version

今我又感動又悲哀。有這麼一個人為書的着迷，夢想，而且不僅是個人的，而是集體的。這都在這網誌上表露出來，去看一看吧。

自

今天想談“自”這個字。

大家第一個聯想到有“自”的詞是那個呢？

自己？自我？自大？自負？自誇？自信？自虐？自憐？自戀？自滿？自殺？

四字詞如自討苦吃？自食其果？ 自相矛盾？自強不息？自身難保？自力更新？自怨自艾？自投羅網？

等等，the list goes on。

爲什麽有這麽多 “自”的詞呢？而沒有譬如“他信"，"他大”等形容其他人的詞呢？爲什麽“自”永遠放在其他字前？

語言是爲了表達人的思想，文字的創造建基於概念的產生。

可能，原因是大家都比較愛想自己的事。西方人的勸告：mind your own business。中國也有差不多的説法：“先顧掂自己" 或 "人地的事" 或 "別多事" 或批判性一點說 “各家自掃門前雪”。



只是有感而發，心裏一直有個目標，別只顧自己，生命不是爲了自己的。

然而，我的生命卻充滿許多矛盾呢。與其這樣說，不如直接承認自己就是爲了自己。是嗎？


I like that.
'Get over it, the big damned world dont owe you a thing' (Eagles)

敢行，敢言

雖然最近本人得罪人多，稱呼人少，但在這單調生活中，沉悶的我是時候spice up my blog，所以我決定了用我講一些cynical和賤格的小趣事，調劑一下，而且娛樂大家。

首先是敢行。今天見到一位貌相二十多嵗的女性用布包裹着一個比嬰兒還大的雪白小熊，像抱小孩的把這小熊緊緊地抱在胸前。

我個人感到這女性的行爲特別前衛，而且難得，因爲她這樣做是需要很大的勇氣。

她這樣做，我有什麽資格取笑她？我只可以崇拜她，這一個小熊眷戀熱潮的先驅者。

第二是敢言。牛屎彿大學法律系圖書館內某女研究生的手提電腦失竊，雖然據悉她已把電腦鎖上，大家驚訝、同情、哀悼這一次損失。敢言的卻是電腦的原主，她居然叫大家捐款，最好每人至少捐一鎊，以助她重新添置新的一台電腦。我心想，原來大家都欠了她，強啊！

難得，這兩位女性敢行，敢言，這樣的話也說得出和行爲也做得出。

這不是完結，其實這是一個很有趣的社會道德價值觀的研究。

如果大家真的覺得她們這樣沒問題，恭喜，因爲你能看穿這社會的愚昧。

科索沃 – 自決權

以下是一個法律學生的個人淺見。英文原文請參照下面。

一般人對自決權的認知可能會有一些混淆，因爲這一個議題特別複雜，與國際法幾個重要的法則有衝突，而且有法律，政治，社會，經濟的不同層面。以下是從法律角度去分析。

簡單來説，科索沃的阿爾巴尼人的主要論點如下：

他們是一個‘people’（請容許我用英文詞彙，因爲國際法用英文比較準確），而國際法已經認可在他們這種情況擁有自決權。

我本人認爲阿爾巴尼人是一個people的論據挺強的。他們佔科索沃百分之九十的人口，有他們獨特的文化，歷史，語言，習俗，而且，最重要是他們對這一塊土地的一個久遠的聯係。他們也可以說自主權在國際法上已經發展成一個比較廣泛的概念，適用于他們身上，尤其是九十年代南斯拉夫分裂的先例，可以給‘自主權’的適用範圍一個更廣的詮釋。

但塞爾維亞卻有一個更強的法理基礎，去辯護它對領土的權利。

簡單來説，國際社會的穩定和和平建基於領土完整這一個法律原則。其實現在世界不同國家都面對這一個民族獨立的問題，前殖民地領土譬如東帝汶，Gibraltar等，其他如以色列和巴勒斯坦，大陸的西藏，臺灣，澳洲的原居民等等。這一個問題影響深遠，因爲涉及到領土的完整，在某一個程度來説，科索沃是從塞爾維亞手中分割出來的。許多國家都不願意承認科索沃獨立，除了自己的國家利益，政治考慮之外，還有對於承認這一個先例的保留。

在國際法上，領土權優先於自決權，而自決權只曾在有領土爭議的情況下才被引用。原來引用自決權的兩個背景是反殖化和被佔領土。從來沒有先例是在原來完整的領土的情況下讓民族行使自決權。

科索沃和塞爾維亞的領土權並非是沒有爭議的，但我看塞爾維亞的領土權比較強，畢竟經過了南斯拉夫分裂后，已經有了一個暫時性的解決方案，是讓科索沃做自治區。我對其中的歷史和地理背景不熟悉，但一般來説，“番舊賬”説不過去，因爲一當領土邊界劃分后，不可以隨便重新再劃分，不然這個世界的版圖會很亂，而且這些年來分裂的頻密而複雜性很高，追索久遠的歷史領土邊界是不可行的。

科索沃最強的道德理據是人權危機吧，就是塞爾維亞沒有厲行作爲國家對人民的責任，將他們迫害，讓他們重新再被塞爾維亞管核不人道。

但這是道德觀點，而不是法律的觀點。人權危機從來沒有成爲國家分裂的一個法理基礎，開這一個先例是很危險的，因爲每個國家都有一些人權的問題，而且人權有不同的標準，如果人權是一個合法理由，美國和NATO可以隨時按自己的人權標凖介入別的國家，然後承認新國家。

下文有一些更詳細的法律分析，是針對一些國際條約和聯合國大會決議的分析，有點技術性，但希望大家有空可以看一下，提一些意見！

Principle of self-determination at international law: the case of Kosovo (REVISED)

INTRODUCTION AND ABSTRACT

There is a plausible case for the Kosovo Albanians to claim a right to self-determination and exercise it to go independent, although it is acknowledged that the application of this right in this context might not have a long-standing basis at international law. My analysis is by no means a conclusive statement of international law as it stands today as international law is inherently quite fluid and arguable for the most part. This article considers four main legal issues that will inform our analysis.

The central argument in this article is this:

The Kosovo Albanians qualify as a people, and are therefore entitled to a claim for self-determination at international law. Arguably, the right to self-determination has evolved over the last 15 years to be wide enough to cover the current case. Serbia however has a strong claim to territorial integrity and that this claim will likely override any right to self-determination.

DEFINITION

For our purposes, the principle of self-determination is understood in the external, political sense as ‘the right to collectively decide on the political status of a people through democratic means.’ (internal self-determination is essentially participatory democracy within a State)

Self-determination is an ongoing process of choice with a broad scope of possible outcomes, as long as it corresponds to the free and voluntary choice of the people concerned. These outcomes can include secession (separation from State), guarantees of cultural security, self-governance and autonomy, economic self-reliance, etc.

GENERAL PRINCIPLE – WHAT IS CLEAR

The right to self-determination has been recognised at customary international law as embodied in the UN Charter (Articles 1 and 55(2)), ICCPR and ICESCR; recognised by General Assembly resolutions (637A, 1514, 1541, and 2625), Helsinki Final Act, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; and affirmed by the International Court of Justice in various cases eg the Western Sahara, East Timor and Namibia cases.

It is also clear that this principle applies in the context of decolonialisation, for instance, the 1970 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the UN (Res 2625) apply specifically to ‘bring an end to colonialism’. That much is not in dispute.

THE BIG ISSUE

The burning question is, ARE THE KOSOVO ALBANIANS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION TO SEPARATE FROM THE STATE OF SERBIA?

LEGAL ISSUES

FIRST: WHETHER THE KOSOVO ALBANIANS ARE A PEOPLE

The international legal instruments refer to ‘ALL PEOPLES’ as holders of the right to self-determination. In order for Kosovo Albanians to enjoy the right to self-determination, they have to be a ‘people’.

Definition of ‘peoples’

There is no international consensus on the precise meaning of ‘peoples’. However, it fairly clear that there are a few essential features:

First, the group must possess a focus of identity sufficient for it to attain distinctiveness as a people.

Second, the group must establish a close connection to a particular territory.

Thirdly, the group must be linked by a common history and have expressed a will to live together and continue the common traditions.

UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples has defined a people as:

a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features:

(a) a common historical tradition;

(b) racial or ethnic identity;

(c) cultural homogeneity

(d) linguistic unity;

(e) religious or ideological affinity;

(f) territorial connection;

(g) common economic life.

The UNESCO experts further stated that "the group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people,"

A key issue is the distinction between ‘peoples’ and ‘minorities’, as this is the major concern of many States in their opposition to the right to self-determination. The significance of the distinction is that while peoples have the right to self-determination, minorities do not.

What constitutes a minority is largely a question of self-identification. The principal elements include numerical inferiority, ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious characteristics distinct from those of the rest of the population of a state and the non-dominant position of the minority.

WHY KOSOVO ALBANIANS ARE A PEOPLE:

Kosovo consists of an overwhelming 90% majority of Albanians. They have for centuries long maintained and cultivated distinct characteristics from other groups inhabiting the territory of the former Yugoslavia. They speak a common language (the Albanian language), have their culture and traditions, and share the same customs.

Since 1918, Kosovo has been recognised as a distinct geographical region with clearly defined borders in Yugoslavia. Since the creation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was an autonomous region and subsequently designated as a province. The borders were in line with the historical lines and could not be changed without approval by Parliament under the Yugoslav Constitution.

The Kosovo Albanians have also spoken in the 1991 Referendum and Declaration for Independence, and again just earlier this month – therefore they have expressed their will as to their political future.

There are a few weaknesses in the argument:

Firstly, the status of ‘autonomous’ region is ambiguous: it can apply equally to many minority regions in the world, for example, Tibet – and it is not clear whether ‘autonomous status’ lends itself to strengthening the argument for it being a people.

Secondly, Kosovo has not always consisted of such an overwhelming majority of Albanians – there were a much bigger proportion of Serbians in the 80’s. A majority of them left Kosovo in the 90’s as a result of the discrimination. Therefore, arguably the demographic domination of the Albanians has not been established for very long.

Thirdly, there is some complexity of the issue with regard to the regional minority of Serbians within Kosovo. The right to self-determination of the people of Kosovo Albanians will necessarily affect them. It is not clear how far it can go.

SECOND ISSUE: IS SECESSION A DOMESTIC MATTER?

Article 2(7) UN Charter:

the UN does not have the authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.

There are two ways Serbia can make this argument that it falls within its domestic jurisdiction (meaning the international community should keep their hands off the matter).

Firstly, Serbia can argue that secession in itself is a domestic matter because some internal groups seek to overthrow the government and declare independence. Say Tibet or Quebec wants to set up its own government and separate from China and Canada, these States are likely to argue that it is internal to the States themselves, and not the business of the international community.

But the application of this principle very largely boils down to the second argument: Serbia can argue that it is a domestic matter based on its territorial title to the Kosovo region. Serbia can support this claim by also arguing that the principle of self-determination would violate its territorial integrity. In my view this is the strongest argument that Serbia can make.

The region of Kosovo has been part of the territory of Serbia, and Serbia has the territorial title to this piece of land. At international law, the principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity are given primacy, and States do not lose their claim to the piece of land merely because the region is inhabited by a certain ethnic group. This is similar to the minority and people distinction, but this lays its focus on the territorial title of the State of Serbia to it – whether or not the Albanians are classified as a people.

The claim that it is Serbian land is very strong given its political boundaries for the last few decades. There is also a very strong international law principle for stability of territorial borders – I will spare you the details, but the legal term is called ‘uti possidetis’ – acceptance that colonial boundaries were not to be challenged after independence. The stability of frontiers comes before the principle of self-determination. This principle applies to all territories, not just colonial territories.

The International Court of Justice has considered this issue in Western Sahara case that the issue of territorial claim comes before the application of principle of self-determination to the people of Western Sahara. If the territory did belong to Mauritania or Morocco, the people of Western Sahara would have had no right to self-determination.

The 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States”, the section entitled 'the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' reads

“Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.”

This principle is there mainly for the purpose of stability of international relations, given that most conflicts arise out of territorial disputes. The claim for independence necessarily involves a claim for territory, and therefore infringes the territorial integrity of States. If it is shown to be within Serbian territory, Serbia has a strong claim based on its claim to territorial integrity – and for the same reason, it is a domestic matter.

There is one argument that can be made in rebuttal to affirm the right to self-determination: Serbia does not have the territorial claim to the region of Kosovo, based on some older claim. I don’t have the geographical and historic data to give further analysis on this – but it looks pretty weak to me.

The strongest basis is probably that the Kosovan borders have become an international boundary after the NATO intervention. Kosovo is currently under UN Mandate, and Article 76 of the UN Charter can be invoked to support the argument that after this interim period of UN trusteeship (UN looking after the region, essentially), they would have the right to independence.

The article reads ‘promote their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each terriotry and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement’.

There is however much uncertainty over interpretation of the exact scope of application of this Article.

Firstly, it does not refer to ‘self-determination’, but it refers to ‘self-government’ or ‘independence’ – essentially the stronger and more controversial forms of exercise of the right to self-determination.

Secondly, it does not define the circumstances under which independence or self-government can be a solution – it merely says ‘as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the territory’. That seems to me to suggest that the solution still depends on the very circumstances of the territory. That is to say, if Serbia has a territorial claim to the province of Kosovo, neither self-government nor independence can be a possibility.

And I don’t think one can argue that Serbia has lost its territorial claim merely because NATO intervened – it is a general principle of international law that territory obtained by use of force is not recognised, for example, Japan’s claim over Manchuria in World War Two.

THIRD ISSUE: LIMITATION ON TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY?

Although I personally don’t buy it, it can be argued that territorial integrity is not absolute and can be subordinated to the right to self-determination under certain circumstances. The argument goes as follows:

If peoples within existing States are treated in a grossly discriminatory fashion by an unrepresentative government, they can claim self-determination and territorial integrity will not defeat their claim. When a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise this right by secession.

To make the argument for the Albanians, Serbia has wronged and oppressed the Albanians in the first place during the humanitarian crisis in 1999. Serbia as a State that grossly violates its international obligations to its citizens has no legitimate claim to invoke this limitation of territorial integrity.

The main features of the Serbian government policy pursued in Kosovo were:

1) a total blockage of the Kosovo Albanian people from a meaningful realisation of its political, economic, social and cultural development, including massive job expulsions, discriminatory land policy, banning mass media in Kosovo;

2) systematic discrimination and the commitment of gross human right violations, including torture, arbitrary arrests and detentions, trials for political prisoners, deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians;

3) the commitment of acts by Serbian military and police seriously attacking the physical existence and integrity of the Kosovo Albanian people especially after the Serbian forces’ crackdowns in Kosovo from early spring 1998.

The legal basis for such an interpretation can be found as follows:

The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, the section entitled 'the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' reads:

“Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of self-determination and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race creed or color.”

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) while recognising the right of all peoples to self-determination states that:

“this shall not be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismemberor impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.” (Emphasis added).

HOWEVER,

I don’t find this a very strong argument. I find that it puts the cart before the horse.

Its basic argument is basically saying that the prohibition in the two General Assembly Resolutions does not apply when the States themselves do not represent the whole people and deny them the right to internal self-determination.

BUT to say that something is not expressly prohibited DOES NOT MEAN there is a right to do it. The overriding status of territorial integrity over principle of self-determination has been established above – and its claim stems from fundamental purposes of the UN Charter of maintaining peace and security, and territorial integrity and political independence of States are expressly enshrined. Its overriding status stands INDEPENDENTLY OF the States’ treatment of their nationals, sadly as it stands.

FOURTH ISSUE: INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

The last argument that Serbia can invoke is even if territorial integrity does not override the right to self-determination, the right to self-determination itself at international law does not extend to Kosovo in the present circumstances.

Basically the two clearly recognised situations for right to secession are peoples under colonial or alien domination or under racist regimes.

However, there is no international legal prohibition on the application of the right to self-determination outside these two contexts.

Kosovo can argue that the right has been widened over the past 30 years or so.

First, the right has arguably evolved over the past 15 years as there has been recent state practice in favour of a wider right to secession outside the decolonialisation especially in the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the USSR – the first time the international community has recognised secessionist movements as such. The very recognition of the new States born as a result of the two dissolved States is an affirmation of an extended application of the principle of self-determination.

Secondly, many of the international legal instruments state the right to self determination in very broad terms esp the ICCPR, ICESCR and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states:

‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self- determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen. ‘

However, the interpretation of the exact content of this right is still very much subject to more legal scrutiny. The law is pretty much still developing in my opinion, and we can’t really say what the precise ambit of the right to self-determination is.

想

這一個部落格,其實是我心目中的一個思想開放的空間,就像這一個花園的百花齊放。

雖然這一點很簡單,但原來對於我自己來説,自己還在慢慢的學,什麽是思想空間。

今天晚上,與一個友人在聊起英國的私校的制度時,發現自己的情緒特別激動.從前也試過這樣,但沒有那種體會--那種conviction和hard feelings。我們聊得異常的認真，因爲個人的意見比較偏激，而特別理想化，但我朋友卻恰巧相反，比較保守和現實。簡單來説，我是覺得英國的私校制度應該被廢掉，很極端吧？我朋友是私校長大的，當然有他的意見。

在這裡，不打算詳談箇中的論據，想說的很簡單，就是對於討論一些微小的體會。

我一直很想很平靜，客觀的討論，但發現自己越講越激動，可能是問題有點敏感，因爲大家意見不一的主因是大家對人與社會的關係的看法不一，對於教育的理念當然有所偏差。無論是怎麽樣的政策，都肯定有它的不足之處。那如果是大家的理想，價值觀的不一，該怎樣去衡量？

做政策的人，又該以怎樣的標準去做決定？

可能是因爲這一個問題就是整個社會運作機制的關鍵，突然覺得惘然，原來一切都不過是意見分歧，如此簡單，卻又如此的複雜。

跟另一個友人談到ＣＡＳＴＲＯ，説到底，他也是一直在把他自己的價值觀加諸於他人民之上，如任何其他政策決定者無異。分別是他身處萬人之上，影響力維持了四十六年。有很多俗語，高処不勝寒，人在江湖身不由己，或是，道不同不相為謀，甚至順我者生，逆我者死？而其他的千千萬萬政府，他們是怎樣操縱其他人的命運？

想到這裡，我就嘗試辯護這一種制度。畢竟群龍不能無首，大家在美國大選中可能也是想找一個可以信賴的，能代表自己的領袖。

而根本上，思想的存在價值就是把它傳播，加諸于別人的身上，因此大家用媒體傳遞自己的想法。

難道這就是辯論的意義嗎？影響身邊的人，那又怎樣？影響，是一個ｎｅｕｔｒａｌ的詞嗎？討論，是啓發思想，但不就是引導別人去自己的思路嗎？如果獨裁是一言堂，那所謂的民主，就是百花齊放麽？

而自己的一些微小的想法，不就是強迫別人接納自己的觀點嗎？

改變，我要改變什麽？我憑什麽？我覺得教育應該是這樣的，其他人有不同的想法。我憑什麽去改變別人的想法呢？

而我現在天天在學的批判性思維，有什麽意義？

EDUCATION IN HONG KONG - why is it failing and how can it be improved?

This is some open space for an exchange of opinion on questions that I find important to me, and perhaps to you - and invite your opinions for my edification. It's often said that learning is not really about getting answers, but about asking the right question - thats a good starting point heh?
This will hopefully be a forum and could you please leave your views here

FIRST TOPIC:
HOW DO WE IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF HONG KONG? WHAT MAKES A GOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM?

This is something that has been bothering me for a while, and I'd really like to do something about it. In order to do that, I'm trying to understand the problem better and want to pick your brains.
There're many problems that worry me, but the central theme is that the system is failing most young people in Hong Kong because the education isn't really education.
This is, obviously, based on my assumption about what education should ideally be - and I welcome different opinions. (In fact i'm making a fairly moderate proposition - education should actually help students to learn and develop themselves)
1. People don't genuinely learn very much in schools, whether good schools or shit schools. In general, good schools only focus on grades and students try very hard to get the grades; there's a gap between the grades and the students' real ability. When society only focuses on the end result and ignores the real point behind the end result, we lose our directions and forget the real meaning of education and examinations. We are all familiar with the theory about learning not ONLY for the sake of exam results, so i won't labour on that point. But my point is that people blindly pursue grades at the expense of their own intellectual development.
How has this demonstrated itself? Basically i hate this tutorial madness phenomenon - people all opt for the easy way and get dummies notes from their colleges, and get good grades based on those notes. I personally also did benefit from those notes (laughs), but that's really sad because we assume we can't think and read and make notes for ourselves and have to be spoonfed. And after exams and some regurgitation exercise, we forget most of what we learnt in these years. Some people say it's the soft skills we've learnt that count for the rest of our lives, but i think its fairly defeatist to take it for granted that the knowledge acquired can just fly away.
That's already for the students who actually care about their own education. They sadly haven't found the right way to do it (not through their own fault, but mainly through the whole culture within society). Some people might know what i'm coming on to now - that's the sadness of the teaching of English in most schools in hong kong. People don't see languages as tools for communication in daily life, but isolated in the exam context. ie people do grammar and exam drills and get As... but they cant actually speak English. How is this system helping students to learn? That's just NOT right!


2. I'd also like to say education in HK fails students because it fails to inspire and develop people's interests and dreams, and keep them alive when they develop further. This also means society lacks diversity in its range of talents and flourishing industries. It's very much society that's to blame I agree, because of the pressure of conformity and the lack of support in this existing economy with its direction of go banking and professionals... People see their jobs as jobs, and their interests and dreams are either forgotten or buried. They might like music, art, drama, sports or anything else, and are very good at that, but they can't go on to do it. There're too many examples around me and you.
When one takes a step back and asks why, I think there's something failing within the education system itself that does not provide students with that element of individuality and freedom to develop themselves, against the current of society.

The questions have been recurring in my mind for a while and i haven't quite come to a proper understanding, and I invite you all to tell me whether you think the system is failing, and why you think it is - what is wrong? I'd really like to know better what the problem is from as many perspectives as possible - one can only starts thinking of a solution by understanding the problems one is to tackle.

I've been trying to do some comparison with education systems abroad, but obviously haven't quite started, and know very little. I've only seen for myself the university education system here, and heard quite a lot about the public school system in England - the only meagre foreign experience i've got.
THere's one programme on BBC which is called 'Top of the class' - it was broadcast a while ago, but i found it very inspiring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6991288.stm
It basically presents some perspective on the education in Finland which focuses on equality, and some other elitist systems like public schools in England and Harvard University. They have different ways of achieving a good education (good in different ways) within the conditions of their own society.

I'm also looking to see more about successful examples to extrapolate something useful from foreign systems (not wholesale export because education is responsive to a certain culture - and that culture varies for different societies I think), but I think that will be a useful point of reference to inspire more thoughts. If you have any opinions about education systems in other places of the world, please leave your opinion as to 'what makes a good education system'.


Lastly, I guess this affects me quite a lot because I think both problems apply to me, and I have properly failed in both respects (not learning properly and not developing my interests and dreams). So this is from an insider's point of view in many respects too...
I'd also like to add that this is some preparation for starting a mini project on my part, so your views will count a lot in helping me (start and) implement it. THANKS!

I look forward to hearing from you all! LEAVE A MESSAGE PLEASE! If you have any experience to share, please do!